Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has decided to allow women to serve in combat roles, a watershed policy shift that follows years of calls for a fully inclusive military.

Panetta and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, are expected to formally announce the change Thursday, Pentagon officials said. The Army, Marines and other services will then develop plans to open jobs in ground combat units, such as the infantry, to women.

I'll echo early sentiments. I have no problem with it as long as the treatment is actually the same. So signing up for the draft, held to the same physical conditioning requirements, competing for the same advancement routes, etc. Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks. I've always felt that was insulting to the truly capable women who wear the uniform, and would love to see a real gender blind military.

I'll echo early sentiments. I have no problem with it as long as the treatment is actually the same. So signing up for the draft, held to the same physical conditioning requirements, competing for the same advancement routes, etc. Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks. I've always felt that was insulting to the truly capable women who wear the uniform, and would love to see a real gender blind military.

I'll echo early sentiments. I have no problem with it as long as the treatment is actually the same. So signing up for the draft, held to the same physical conditioning requirements, competing for the same advancement routes, etc. Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks. I've always felt that was insulting to the truly capable women who wear the uniform, and would love to see a real gender blind military.

How are their advancement tracks easier?

Because their current restrictions from direct combat roles is "balanced" (in theory) by not placing such a requirement on mid/high tier advancement. It's much easier for a female officer to obtain the rank of Major or Colonel by following a non-combat track than a male officer, for example. Obviously, part of that also comes from the fact that there are far fewer women in the military as a whole and there's a push (again mostly in non-combat, but high profile/political positions) for more visibility of female officers. If you don't think there are aspects of affirmative action going on in the military (especially at the Pentagon), you are terribly deluded.

I'm not claiming that those women who hold those ranks are not qualified for them or do not deserve them. What I am saying is that there is less direct competition for those positions and ranks if you are a woman than if you are a man. Put another way, an extremely capable female officer is likely to be one of only a few such extremely capable female officers in consideration for a given position (with presumed good advancement potential), while an equally capable male officer might be one of several hundred similarly capable male officers in consideration for an equivalent position with equivalent advancement potential.

Right now the one advantage men do have is that combat experience tends to open up tracks of advancement (and some high rank positions) that are not available via a non-combat track. This is why I applaud this idea (and have for as long as I've posted here certainly). By eliminating this restriction, then we can eliminate the current messed up imbalanced system and allow both sexes to compete and work together as equals. But at the same time, we have to eliminate even the hint or suggestion that some favoritism may go on (in either direction). I think we can all agree that we want our military personnel to be advanced based on completely equal consideration of their abilities and without any consideration of their gender. That's currently not the case.

I think we can all agree that we want our military personnel to be advanced based on completely equal consideration of their abilities and without any consideration of their gender. That's currently not the case.

Promotions are based on acquiring a number of points through going to various schools, heading training exercises and classes, APFT, weapon qualification, and the other 99% is being friends with the people on your board.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.

I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I really do see Selective Service applying to women in the future. I hesitate to say near future because I'm sure neither side wants to be accused of another "war on women" by the other side in 2014... but I think it will happen. Considering both the DoD opinion and the Supreme Court decision cite women not being allowed in combat positions as a reason.

I think we can all agree that we want our military personnel to be advanced based on completely equal consideration of their abilities and without any consideration of their gender. That's currently not the case.

Promotions are based on acquiring a number of points through going to various schools, heading training exercises and classes, APFT, weapon qualification, and the other 99% is being friends with the people on your board.

What's this "board" you speak of? I kid, I kid...

Belkira wrote:

'Bout time.

And I agree with gbaji that everything else needs to be the same as well, though I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.

I agree with the lift only IF the woman has the option to serve in the said position. The lift would cause more harm than good if women are forced into certain combat arms with no say in the factor.

lolgaxe wrote:

Belkira wrote:

I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.

I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe

I believe sit ups are the same. Other than that, a man's "180" is a woman's "300" on the APFT.

Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks.

No. Combat arms is by far the fastest way to get promoted, period.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Unfortunately, for all the claims of equality and whatnot, women in the military are not held to the same standards as men, and have vastly easier advancement tracks.

No. Combat arms is by far the fastest way to get promoted, period.

I would have to agree with LolGaxe with enlisted promotions, at least up to E6. If the people on the board like you, you're in. Favoritism is rapid in the Army. From what I hear, the Air Force does it right where promotions are done by their skill levels in reference to their job and not how well they can recite a creed or run 2 miles.

I don't really have a problem with women serving on Subs and the like. I also don't have any issue with them being in combat areas for certain roles. Call me chauvenistic, but I shudder at the thought of them actually doing strict combat duty. It's not that I don't think that they can do it, because some of them certainly can. I had met a few women in the course of my service that were flat out more manly than me. Where it starts to get blurry for me though is I do believe that it puts fellow combatants at risk. I think men are naturally protective of women, and might put themselves at risk to the detriment of the mission to protect them. I know that any combat soldier would go out of their way to save a fellow soldier in most cases, but I think it might go even more so in these circumstances. But maybe I'm just old fashioned and out of touch with the young people joining today.

Almalieque wrote:

From what I hear, the Air Force does it right where promotions are done by their skill levels in reference to their job and not how well they can recite a creed or run 2 miles.

This is certainly true to an extent. You get a certain amount of points for everything from medals awarded, types of service (short tours, overseas tours, etc) time in service, time in rank, etc. There are points for passing the Phys Fitness aspects, and knowledge of the UCMJ and AF history, but it's a relatively small percentage of the overall score. The largest factor in promotions is the test they have to take for their particular career field.

That's how I recall it anyway. From talking to others in the Army, Navy, and Marines it seems physical fitness scores are much more relevant to their promotions than for AF. I'm not saying that the AF "does it right" but they stress other factors. Then again physical fitness isn't generally as important as it is for the other branches either.

____________________________

Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

Where it starts to get blurry for me though is I do believe that it puts fellow combatants at risk.

Meh, it's not even the combat. I'll tell the women the same thing I tell men now when they say they want to be Infantry: "How fast do you think you can dig a hole in the desert, drop trow, and crap wearing fifteen pounds of gear (not counting weapon and rucksack) with at least thirty other people walking around? How attached to showers are you?"

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 8:35pm by lolgaxe

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.

I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe

The husband is retired Navy and he's shaking his head about this. The fitness requirements for females is lower than males. The other reason that he's got an issue with this is that during Navy deployments, it was (anecdotally) common for female military members to get pregnant right before or at the very beginning of a deployment and be sent home and a replacement for her would not be sent. There were also issues with females having their periods and claiming that PMS cramps were interfering with them being able to go on duty.

I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.

I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe

The husband is retired Navy and he's shaking his head about this. The fitness requirements for females is lower than males. The other reason that he's got an issue with this is that during Navy deployments, it was (anecdotally) common for female military members to get pregnant right before or at the very beginning of a deployment and be sent home and a replacement for her would not be sent. There were also issues with females having their periods and claiming that PMS cramps were interfering with them being able to go on duty.

I have no idea how much of his assessment concerning advancement is true.

I'll do you one better. I'll tell you that the only difference between male and female assessments is during the yearly required Army Physical Fitness Test where females have lower requirements across the board, and I'll also tell you that the APFT means about as much to a promotion as your ability to breathe is a requirement for you to get promoted. Yes, it's necessary you can do it, but your ability to somehow do it better doesn't really matter.

And now give it a few and you'll be told how what I just said is wrong because I'm biased and just can't see it.

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 7:06pm by lolgaxe

The husband is retired Navy and he's shaking his head about this. The fitness requirements for females is lower than males. The other reason that he's got an issue with this is that during Navy deployments, it was (anecdotally) common for female military members to get pregnant right before or at the very beginning of a deployment and be sent home and a replacement for her would not be sent. There were also issues with females having their periods and claiming that PMS cramps were interfering with them being able to go on duty.

From what I hear from my female counterparts is that they are mandated special treatment (i.e. showers, etc.) while in the field. I have no problem with the adaptation of women, but it often gets very financially wasteful.

About what I said? Because it's shameful that I'm right or he disagrees? I mean, I'm just relating based on what I see so the Navy could be very well different. And yeah, females on the Army side sham as well with the same tactics, though my last go-'round we did get replacements. The lower requirements on the PT side are only really annoying when the same girls start complaining about equality. Anytime else it's pretty much a nonissue, since like I said all that test does is get you to the table. The difference between 180 and 350 is the shape of the numbers. I wish the military was a lot less like Whose Line Is it Anyway, but at this point I'm just relieved that we're finally barring PT Failures from re-enlistment. Anyway, I still think I'm right but any clarification would be appreciated. Even with the shamming, if she's friendly enough with the board she'll still get the same promotion like it didn't even happen. It's a joke. At least up to the 7 mark the board has been a relative joke. It's a little hard to even pretend there is going to be impartiality when you're sitting across from a guy who is there to decide whether or not you're qualified enough to get the promotion when the night before you went to a bar with him and got hammered. But meh, like I said, I'll take my small victory for now. I'd mention weapon qualifications, but the reality is you don't leave a range until you qualify so you can be there ten, twenty times a day for three days. Means the same as me going 40+/40.

I don't really care if women want to be on the front lines, and as far as combat prowess is concerned I don't feel it's an issue either. Frankly, I think women are much more aggressive anyway. And it isn't like men don't sham either so I don't believe that's a good enough reason to bar them. My issue is the every day activities in between combat. The only way they're getting showers during a day long march on the front line is if they build them. Of course, they can get the guys to do it for them, but I can't really say that'll last. Latrines are the same. At least when I was still doing the Infantry thing there certainly weren't any on our march routes. Maybe Afghanistan changed since then? Changing pads or tampons and whatever is going to be a pretty **** big issue, too.

I don't know. I think I'm just too tired of the system to even shake my head at how broken it is.

That, and the wife and kid are at the inlaws and I'm bored.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

The other reason that he's got an issue with this is that during Navy deployments, it was (anecdotally) common for female military members to get pregnant right before or at the very beginning of a deployment and be sent home and a replacement for her would not be sent. There were also issues with females having their periods and claiming that PMS cramps were interfering with them being able to go on duty.

I used to see that a fair amount as well. When I was in a mobility unit, we did a lot of TDY. As a computer maintenance shop we only had 3 women in our section, during my time I saw 2 of the 3 use those types of excuses. Both also used marital problems as excuses not to go too, though in fairness I suppose the married guys could have done the same. I think it would have been less effective somehow though.

____________________________

Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

Where it starts to get blurry for me though is I do believe that it puts fellow combatants at risk.

Meh, it's not even the combat. I'll tell the women the same thing I tell men now when they say they want to be Infantry: "How fast do you think you can dig a hole in the desert, drop trow, and crap wearing fifteen pounds of gear (not counting weapon and rucksack) with at least thirty other people walking around? How attached to showers are you?"

Edited, Jan 23rd 2013 8:35pm by lolgaxe

Fair point as well.

____________________________

Some people are like slinkies, they aren't really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.

"Hey Vasquez, has anybody ever mistaken you for a man?" "No. Has anybody ever mistaken you for a man?"

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

I think this is fine in theory. I also think the news cyclone around the first straight white woman to die in a recently allowed combat role will break records for fake outrage from the right.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Curious suddenly why women on front lines of combat aren't on the Depo shots or implana or whatever the current "no periods for 90 days" thing is. I do that with my daily pills now, but there's other once-every-three-months options that don't require daily effort.

I mean, why the fudge bother with all that grody when you don't have to?

____________________________

FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014

Thayos wrote:

I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

I think this is fine in theory. I also think the news cyclone around the first straight white woman to die in a recently allowed combat role will break records for fake outrage from the right.

And pretty, and blonde.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

Really, I was on board with Catwho's post with the depo shots, in theory. I mean, the government forces soldiers to take all sorts of crazy drugs, I don't think it's too extreme to ask a woman to not menstruate for several months to a year. Obviously it would be preferable for many reasons. Regardless, tampons are an invention of the last 50 years, if we can't find a way to rise above all the silly stereotypes and "ew" mentality of the female menstrual cycle during times of warfare, I really lose a lot of faith in our soldiers on the front line.

Did you go through with the Norway plan in the end? I'm thinking about jumping ship after graduation.

Why would you want to do that? Graduates get to work for poundland for free, we're about to leave the EU,the whole country is being run by Serco, hamburgers are made of horsemeat, and the only real concern of the media is that our favourite **** prince likes to play videos games. How could it be better anywhere else?

#49gbaji,
Posted:Jan 24 2013 at 2:52 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) A news cyclone would almost certainly derive from the left, given their control of the news. I'm sure you're correct, however, in that hundreds of liberal journalists will rush off to shove microphones in conservative politicians faces to ask them what they think, then make hay out of the answers. Assumption leading the day, of course.